South Africa Case Law

Sodi and Others v S In re S v Mokhesi and Others (45/2021)

Sodi and Others v S In re S v Mokhesi and Others (45/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 244 (16 September 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

45/2021

Judge

Naidoo

The court found that none of the applicants met the stringent threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds advanced were either already dealt with in the main judgment or were not supported by the facts or law. The court emphasized that preliminary litigation prior to criminal trial is discouraged and that issues such as admissibility of evidence and constitutional challenges should be determined by the trial court. The alleged case management order by JP Musi did not require preliminary issues to be determined before trial. The court also fou…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Preliminary Litigation
• Declaratory Relief
• Condonation
• Prevention And Combating Of Corrupt Activities Act
• Criminal Procedure Act

Mokhesi and Others v S (45/2021)

Mokhesi and Others v S (45/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 58; 2022 (2) SACR 326 (FB) (28 March 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

45/2021

Judge

Naidoo

The High Court dismissed pre-trial applications to quash charges, stay prosecution, or exclude State Capture Commission evidence as premature.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Preliminary Litigation
• Self Incrimination
• Regulation 8 State Capture Commission
• Section 27 Precca
• Declaratory Relief

Van der Merwe v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (373/09)

Van der Merwe v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (373/09) [2010] ZASCA 129; 2011 (1) SACR 94 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 600 (SCA) (30 September 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

373/09

Judges

Harms, Nugent, Shongwe, Tshiqi, Bertelsmann

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that even if the appellant had established that the DSO acted outside its mandate and unconstitutionally, the court was not obliged to issue a declaratory order under section 172(1) of the Constitution in the absence of consequent relief. The court emphasized that preliminary litigation of this nature should be discouraged, as it serves only to delay the criminal trial and pre-empt issues best resolved by the trial court, such as admissibility of evidence and fair trial rights. The appellant's application was dismissed as the issues raised were not appropriate…

Source excerpt

• Section 172 Constitution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Exchange Control Regulations
• Preliminary Litigation
• Mandate Of Dso
• Admissibility Of Evidence